Where is most "gravity", inside or out?

As both you and I have demonstrated, no, that's wrong.

You are wrong today, and you will stil be wrong tomorrow, because the history of words can't be modified (only added to). It's delusional to think otherwise (unless you have concrete time travel plans?).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

not really, going beyond newton for a moment. An overlap of fields versus a cancellation is not the same, because in the retention of both fields, you would twice the gravity, (but pulling in opposite direction) in the center of gravity, whereas the fields cancelling outright would give zero, period.
In case of the overlap of the 2 intact fields, would you not have time dilation?

You called gravity a "bulk phenomenon", walked into it that one, I could not resist on words play and tie that to the theme of this thread: the bulk is on the outside, not inside.
What I mean by this wording? when you equate the strength of gravity, its pull to the areas that are covered in the graph we discuss, you can see that the inside area outlined is way smaller than the outside, so, both a) the strength of gravity and b) the volume it [potentially] acts in, is greater on the outside than the inside.

with due respect I never said " mass on the surface " gravity at the surface , I believe you read that wrong at least twice, no wonder , I to blame.

reserve judgement on that, because all the little particle's gravity fields individually , reach to zero at the center and infinity on the outside. cancel at zero, go on outside a long way.
together these many fields make up the "bulk" that peaks with strength on the surface of the entity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is my understanding too, so how could you get relativistic effects from a field that does not exist any more as asserted by some?

The horizontal represents distance, radius, by extension area, and volume and the vertical indicates strength, so, the area defined by them is a good visualization of the gravity situation,
Think of inverting this image and then rotating it through 360 degrees around the vertical axis, The area inside the blue line would sweep out a neat representation of the gravity well. so,
the Area representation is an effective one. It combines strengt and volume

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The proposition of this thread being, that there is more "outside gravity, more in strength, more in volume

agreed,

 

The areas bounded by the horizontal axis and the blue line, or even the hatched lines give a better picture of the gravitational field because a field implies a plane, 2 dimensions. but now Imagine going to 3 dimensions by carving a trench with that tooth-shaped template around the center axis; then you would have a gravity trench, deepest at the surface ring, and note the pinnacle of zero gravity at the center.
That is why the common funnel shaped gravity wells are all wrong, imho, because you have to show the center-mound, center high point, where gravity is at level zero; and most dont. and
Area presentations are powerful, think of J. Kepler's area law, gravity based

 

Please provide proof for that assertion.
the gravitational potential can only be maintained, if the merging gravitational field lines go in the same direction, , not when gravity pulls in opposite directions , which is the case when Ultima and Thule approached and touched. here is
James R's comment on such situations. :

 

Can you support that assertion? is not even the potential cancelled out by the "vector direction lines" pulling in opposite direction? please reconcile the idea that there would be added gravity potential where no acceleration can be detected wit James R's observation above.

 

I already have. You ignore things that don't meet your preconceived ideas, remember?

This is part of mainstream physics it is not hidden, it is called general relativity.

Go to Google type time dilation and gravitational potential into the search bar and read results. If you can't be bothered to do that, then just go away

 

"Gravity is highest in the centre of the earth".

Above appears doubtful,
If gravity is loosely defined as measure of g, then g is zero at the centre or am I missing something here.

 

"If", then yes, because you are talking about gravitational force. However, if it means "gravitational potential", then no. We don't know what nebel means, because he purposefully avoided clarifying his statements multiple times, even when directly asked. And even if he did give an answer, it would be of little value, seeing how little he knows about gravity. For example, post #306 and #307 prove he doesn't know the difference between a force and a potential, which probably explains why he didn't make that distinction in the first place.

 

I realize we even discussed this on this thread in the pages 3,4,5,, still, why dont you give another pithy answer? an explanation that hits the nail on the head: of Such an counter-intuitive thing, that, in the center, being surrounded by thousand km of walls, where gravity would have pinned you down on the surface, you would now keep you free floating, allowing you to lift an elephant, not at like a feather, but requiring only a push as he were in roller bearings. only acceleration of his rest mass. and all that while you are in a deep gravity well.why gravity is not neutralized but adding even while you are subtracting positive from negative (direction of pull).

 

Yes, not only I may need reminding. Do you mean I have to take that elephant to the center to turn the potential that might be there or not into a force? I do not mean that as a force farce!

 

As expected you couldn't be bothered to type into google the terms I gave to you. So why don't you just go away.
You don't want to learn anything you just want to annoy.

 

I did, am familiar with this since the 1930s, when Einstein and I lived in the same town, spoke the same jargon, and stuff like that was the daily fare.
There is no question that gravity, when acting on an object, will slow down that entity's movement through time, same if you start going real fast, as seen by others. but
The question is really:
At the center, is gravity acting, when it has been cancelled by pulling in opposite directions. or not, and
the 4 words linked you gave us, via google, did not address that issue. so, let us, for fun, do a thought experiment:
The long planned borehole through the earth has been build, braced, refrigerated. stable and sealed for drafts. now,
let us send down a gravity meter. Would it go off the scale, once arrived at the center, because it fell to a zero reading? It might have had some familiar ups on the way down, passing lead, gold, uranium deposits, but if you believe your own graph and the shell theorem, it will have had a zero reading, as it floated weightlessly at the center. now:
A rogue researcher attached a watch to that package. and upon hauling the instruments up, would you not expected the clock to have "lost time", - gone slower down there in the midst of all that mass, and kept, recorded that experience?
despite the fact that no gravity was detected to act down there, even on that g-meter and clock combo?
If there is time dilation, the clock should have sped up, because in the zero measured gravity down there, clocks run wild, speed up, and only upon being hauled back up, to normal surface gravity that is the strongest as measured, is the place where clocks are slow.
ps: honestly: I appreciate what you contributed, losing you because of annoyance would be the furthest from my mind. really. so, final word:
Yes; time dilation will occur in the center of mass, but not as you might expect, as read, only in pseudo science,

 

I was talking about just the 'g' which is zero at the centre.

Can you please provide some maths or reference which could confirm your point that gravitational potential is highest at the centre.

Please note that in Newtonian few of these quantities are derived by Gaussian method, which considers the mass inside, and in case of cantre point, the mass inside the centre is nil, thus gravity related parameters must necessarily be zero. Please clarify how potential is the highest at the centre.

 

we are not talking of mass inside the center ( except in earlier posts #152, #153, where there was a cavity, no mass in the center) but discussing equally surrounding the center. As to derivation from Gauss et al,
I deal with simpler geometry only, perhaps experts can help. here is no mass at center situations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

see posts #152, #153

 

Here is an article discussing time dilation at the center of the earth.
Time dilation.

 

thank you, yes, reading, that is what I expected, but here in pseudo science, post# 315 I mentioned the unexpected, even for me. as I was writing, contrary conclusion.
The article said also as a caveat:
"Of course, this number can’t be confirmed experimentally, explained Uggerhøj to New Scientist." after:
"time runs slower wherever gravity is strongest, and this is because gravity curves space-time. "
The key question raised in our discussion here is:
Is there only as a potential a very strong gravity at the center?, or can you really measure that strength?, Do opposing gravity fields co - exist, overlap, and that will annul the pull,? Could there by latent gravity at the center, not measurable, because being levelled, akin to waves interfering? ( nebel introducing a possible wave theory of gravity here) so,
I proposed that thought experiment in post 314. with the accelerometer going down and a clock hitching a ride to the center. My observation was, yes there is no gravity, therefore the clock should run faster. That is where I stand, sorry, so: " you must be kidding Mr. Feynman "
I like the overall proposition of a gradient of time or energy from the center to the equator though, because it is reflected in the "cancellation of Jupiter velocities" thread, just below, where there is shown to be a velocity gradient with respect to the sun's gravitational field, between equator and poles, noon and night, perhaps building rings on Saturn, on the dark side.

 

Potential is the integral of gravitational force over distance. The potential is the negative of the work you need to do to remove a test mass to infinity from a given point. (Negative because the system has progressively lower potential energy as the test mass is allowed to "fall" inward towards the object attracting it. So lowest, not highest, at the centre.).

So, for example, outside the object, F =GmM/r² (Newton's law of gravitation), while potential , V = -GmM/r, (or commonly -GM/r, since it is usually defined in terms of work done on a unit mass).

As you penetrate a spherical mass, the gravity it exerts progressively diminishes, reaching zero at the centre, as you rightly say. However the total work you need to do to remove a test mass to infinity from any point is still increasing as you get closer to the centre, albeit more and more slowly, due to the diminishing of the gravitational force as you go deeper. So the maximum work needed to remove the test mass to infinity occurs when the test mass is at the centre. That means the potential is at a minimum at the centre.

If you plot potential vs distance, you get a curve that gets steeper as you approach the object, following the inverse square law, until you reach the surface. From there on, the curve starts to get shallower, bottoming out at the centre and rising again the other side. So in 3D it looks like this:-

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Once again, an informative, clear and concise post, very nice.

That should answer Iskcon, now if only nebel would read and understand it. I do not hold out much hope for nebel....